Appeal from judgment of Court of Oyer and Terminer of York County, Aug. T., 1950, No. 79, in case of Commonwealth v. Robert Corbin.
Donald L. Reihart, for appellant.
John T. Miller, First Assistant District Attorney, with him John F. Rauhauser, Jr., District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien and Roberts, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Bell. Mr. Justice Musmanno did not participate in the decision of this case.
Petitioner (throhgh and by his attorney) has taken this direct appeal nunc pro tunc as allowed by the lower Court from the Judgment of Sentence of murder of the first degree.
Anna M. Bittle was found dead on or about May 14, 1950, in Codorus Creek, under the Beaver Street Bridge in York County, and Corbin was indicted for her murder. The Commonwealth proved that Corbin
robbed and killed Anna Bittle; Corbin's defense was an alibi, which was denied by his sister. On January 5, 1951, Corbin was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, which fixed his sentence at life imprisonment. The Court en banc denied Corbin's motion for a new trial and a judgment of sentence was entered by the Court on June 25, 1951. At the trial and sur his motion for a new trial, defendant was represented by counsel.
Prior to the present appeal, appellant has previously filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, seven petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, and one Post Conviction Hearing Act petition (several in our Courts*fn* and several in the Federal Courts), all of which were dismissed. The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari on April 7, 1967. We deem it unnecessary to state or review his previous contentions; it will suffice to say that neither at trial nor in any prior petitions or proceedings did he or his counsel raise as a basis for relief any of the grounds herein alleged.
Appellant first contends that it was error to refuse to admit certain notes and letters allegedly written by the State's chief witness for the purpose of showing his bias. Appellant next alleges that it was error to refuse to admit testimony to the effect that several witnesses standing 400 feet from the scene of the alleged crime did not see the appellant in the area. The admission of such evidence was within the discretion of the trial Court and its rejection was not an abuse of discretion and certainly was not reversible error.
Appellant next contends that the lower Court erred in refusing to charge the jury on ...